On 3/18/2013 5:07 PM, WM wrote: > On 18 Mrz., 20:48, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > >> I am unconcerned with your beliefs because >> I am unconcerned with whether or not they >> are true. > > If you are unable to prove by yourself that the set of finite words is > countable, then further discussion with you is meaningless. >>
What I can or cannot prove to myself is not an issue.
What is needed here is an agreed upon standard of proof.
>> I ask for your principles. > > It is not my principle
But, you have already attempted to restrict me to only your own principles in trying to understand your statements.
> but it is a principle of set theory
Which set theory? Axioms please.
> that there > are countable sets, one of them being the set of all finite words, > here written in binaries: > > 0 > 1 > 00 > 01 > 10 > 11 > 000 > ... > > Every letter of every other finite alphabet can be translated into > binaries. And every infinite alphabet can be atttached to a fool - > hence deserving no further discussion.
Suppose I have a circle with a pentagon inscribed.
Suppose I label the intersections sequentially.
Suppose I define
f(x) = x modulo 5
What do you mean by finite if you do not mean it in the sense of Kant's fifth remark?
> 1) > Time is not an empirical concept > that is derived from experience. > [...] > > 2) > Time is a necessary representation > that underlies all intuitions > [...] > > 3) > The possibility of apodeictic principles > concerning the relations of time, or > of axioms of time in general is > grounded upon this a priori necessity. > [...] We should only be able to > say that common experience teaches > that this is so; not that it must be > so. These principles are valid as > rules under which alone experiences > are possible; and they instruct us > in regard to experiences, not be > means of them. > > 4) > Time is not a discursive, or what is > called a general concept, but a form > of pure sensible intuition. > > 5) > The infinitude of time signifies > nothing more than that every determinate > magnitude of time is possible only > through limitations of one single > time that underlies it."
To the best of my knowledge, you cannot prove a halt.